I Saw You: Neo-Nazis Attended the San Jose Women’s March?

These two men were seen standing in the Fourth Street Garage by San Jose City Hall during the Women’s March.

Many people found inspiration and hope in last weekend’s Women’s March in San Jose. The cavalier attitude Donald Trump’s presidential campaign took toward women, minorities, immigrants, Gold Star families, POWs, Russian hacking, the press, the truth—let’s just leave it here, shall we?—galvanized a nationwide day of protest less than 24 hours after Trump was inaugurated.

But not everyone was on board.

Take these two men standing on a public garage balcony overlooking South Fourth Street, between City Hall and Flames restaurant. One has a camera with a long lens and the other—notably hiding under a hat and sunglasses—appears to be holding a napkin/handkerchief bearing a Swastika.

San Jose Inside’s parent company, Metro Silicon Valley, runs a weekly reader-submitted column entitled “I Saw You.” This week’s edition focused on the men in this photo. Without further ado:

I saw you up there on the balcony, watching me and 30,000-plus friends as we took to the streets to show our opposition to the new president. We stood up for the vulnerable: immigrants, LGBTQ, the poor, students, women—everyone who will be negatively affected by the Trump administration. We were a peaceful, loving avalanche of snowflakes and there you were, a troll under a bridge. Actually, you were a Nazi on a balcony, flying a handkerchief-sized swastika flag and flipping us off. We saw you, and you saw us. And that’s important: you were small and scared, hiding on your perch under a hat and sunglasses. We were large and proud, our boots on the ground, faces free for the world to see.

Anyone can submit a short rant or positive observation to I Saw You by emailing [email protected]

This post has been updated to note the uncertainty in motivations of the men in the photo.

Josh Koehn is a former managing editor for San Jose Inside and Metro Silicon Valley.

This is what it actually looks like when you can zoom in on the original photo (posted to the woman’s march San Jose Facebook page). This story has already been debunked on the women march San Jose website. I thinks it’s irresponsible that he brought a sign that looks like this from a distance, but it’s more irresponsible to post this hype several days after it’s been resolved.

I am confident that President Donald Trump DOES NOT have a “cavalier attitude” toward Gold Star families, or anyone else in your litany.

Since the Left cannot make a rational, fact-based case for their issues, they are reduced to exaggeration, hyperbola, sensationalizing, embellishing, and stretching their accusations well beyond reason and believability.

I suspect you are tempted to post your next anti-Trump rant in all caps. Please resist.

Correct, inasmuch as the scope of his attitude is too myopic; he has a cavalier attitude towards just about anything save his megalomania.

“Since the Left cannot make a rational, fact-based case for their issues, they are reduced to exaggeration, hyperbola, sensationalizing, embellishing, and stretching their accusations well beyond reason and believability.”

The above is so meta-ironic it strains any threshold of credulity. You would appear to be engaging in your own hyperbole, but hey, whatever works for your goose makes for great complaints with regards to their ganders.

From “I am confident President Trump” to “Since the left cannot”. That is precisely the problem with Trump era fake is truth. Your confidence is not substitute for facts. There are enough TV footage and direct comments by Trump out there, to prove that he is exactly a misogynist, with cavalier attitude towards (Muslim) gold star families, is anti science etc. etc. Most US folks are learning to tolerate this for next 4 years, however, there is no way you or anyone else can morph your ill-informed “confidence” into facts.

You’re told Soros was a collaborator? Well, you could try confirming or refuting that using reliable sources, instead of just taking the time to spread the claim behind the excuse that you’re just repeating what you’re told.

I think you’ll find the answer surprising to you, although not to the rest of the planet. Enjoy this new adventure of checking claims before spreading them.

I’ll leave this interview of George from back in the 90s right here. If you want to get to the meat start at 6 min 30 secs. I think you’ll find his dismissal rather telling: https://youtu.be/HXqty2rkUDY

In other words, “speaking of neo-Nazis,” let’s shift gears and speak about something else. Why? Why not speak of the neo-Nazi in the picture? You know, the one we are actually speaking of? Know him? Any idea what he was doing there? Was he for or against Trump? If against, why not go join the other anti-Trump people down below? Is he a frequent contributor to comments on this site? You have a lot of insights about George Soros, dumb people, and progressives. Can I bug you to use that brain to provide some insights on these questions?

I believe you said it yourself: Since [you] cannot make a rational, fact-based case for their issues, [you] are reduced to exaggeration, hyperbola, sensationalizing, embellishing, and stretching [your] accusations well beyond reason and believability (sic).

You’re setting up strawmen to knock them down, Bubbly. Can’t speak for Wonder Woman, but I never said this neo-Nazi does not have a right to stand on the balcony or watch the march. Don’t think Josh said that either. This gentleman is advertising his neo-Nazi beliefs by flashing the swastika. That expression too is protected by the 1st Amendment.

But Josh and I also have 1st Amendment rights to comment on him, his beliefs, and his decision to advertise his beliefs during this march. Why did he make that decision? Does he think his beliefs are antithetical to those of the marchers? Does he think his beliefs are aligned with the new President?

Josh wrote “I Saw You.” And indeed, this neo-Nazi is trying to be seen. He is advertising his beliefs. To say “I Saw You” is not the same as saying – “You have no right to stand on that balcony.”

As usual, your beliefs about bigotry and the 1st Amendment are crippled by your double standards. When this neo-Nazi exercises his 1st Amendment rights, you think those rights should be protected. I’m with you on that one. When I or Josh comment on his neo-Nazi beliefs though, you want me to “check my bigotry.” Why?

Bigotry is intolerance of others. What do you understand by “intolerance?” Am I intolerant if I disagree with someone? Have you ever disagreed with anyone? I am tolerant of this neo-Nazi in that I respect his right to stand on that balcony and advertise his neo-Nazi beliefs. But I am not in agreement with his hateful beliefs, and I have the right to voice my disagreement.

Also, you put “neo-Nazi” in scare quotes. Are you going to argue the definition like you argued the definition of “cavalier?” Do you disagree that someone flashing a swastika during this march likely is a “neo Nazi?” Do you disagree that someone who is a neo-Nazi identifies with a hate group? Would you ever flash a swastika for a purpose other than expressing neo-Nazi sympathies? If so, please tell us instead of playing coy, changing the topic to George Soros, or dancing around a direct answer with pretensions of sarcasm.

“We stood up for the vulnerable: immigrants, LGBTQ, the poor, students, women—everyone who will be negatively affected by the Trump administration.” Let’s review facts:
* Trump has (in defiance of some supporters) declared he won’t act to reverse gay marriage or seek to rescind any Federal LGBT policies and statues. My LGBT and straight friends tell me they would not want members of the opposite biological sex sharing showers regardless of how another may identify.
* Acting to remove criminal illegals. What’s so tragic about deporting them?
* Restricting those from countries that have committed terrorist acts. Unfortunately selective screening isn’t very effective as 911 conspirator Ali Mohamed plus Orlando, Boston, San Bernardino, etc. terrorists have demonstrated.
* Cancelling TPP and renegotiating NAFTA. His initiatives have already saved jobs and boosted job prospects.
* Broached sending personnel to Chicago to quell violence. The overwhelming majority of Chicago’s shooting victims are black.
* Resisted calls to dump ACA until a replacement is in place. He seems to favor block grants to fund better healthcare at a lower cost.
* Women? Am unaware of any new policies that affect US women. More women supported DJT than Clinton.
* Students & Poor? Am unaware of policies that harm them. Trump does appear to be focused on job creation for upward mobility.

Will appreciate more illumination and less sanctimonious indignation. Otherwise, SJI looses credibility and relevance.

I really think the Photographer and his assistant were working together. Standing together, just waiting to get that spectacular facial photo of a unsuspected protester’s anger aroused by something perceived as unjust, mean, or unworthy; i.e. a Swastika. It’s the oldest tick in the tabloid playbook from the side representing the protest’s opposition.

First of all the guy is just standing there even if he was flipping people off. Second of all you are jumping to a conclusion what that is even a flyer/napkin etc could have by the size, simply been a book. Not only that you are equating the symbol to neo-nazis and that’s not the only meaning of that symbol!

The swastika has an extensive history. It was used at least 5,000 years before Adolf Hitler designed the Nazi flag. The word swastika comes from the Sanskrit svastika, which means “good fortune” or “well-being.”

He was actually doing nothing illegal as far as I can read and everything else is simply based on someone’s personal observation of why they think he may have been there.

There are still Native Americans that use this symbol in their jewelry for what they perceive it to mean.

Took a break for a bit. Glad to see the name calling is alive and well. That was kind of a late freakout in your post, Gina. Like you were coasting on Eastern philosophy or something and suddenly lost your marbles. Take it easy. No need for sudden exclamation points. You’re clearly smarter than the average bear. Take another puff on that svastika-decorated bong. You’re right. There is “no way to judge someone by what they’re holding.” Unless they have on a hockey mask and are holding a bloody knife. Even then, if they are just standing and watching you, so what. Cheers.

In a city where Mexican nationals have marched by the thousands through the street waving the flags of their beloved homeland, to the delight of the news media and elected officials, it’s quite an overreach to conclude much of anything about that man. Neo-Nazi? That’s a term that is supposed to apply to someone who is a member of an Nazi-like organization, something that certainly can’t be concluded based only on the possession of a snot-rag. For all we know this guy is nothing more than a non-violent provocateur, like the many LGBT members who like to suck face for the news camera hoping to shock and revolt the folks at home.

Of course I understand that some people find it very exciting and self-affirming to have Nazi boogiemen in their lives, but for those of us who’ve experienced and survived genuine life and death danger in our own lives, all the fuss about Nazis seems rather contrived given the realities of who it is who’s doing the storm trooping these days.

> What a bunch of empty insinuation – you sound like a sad lawyer no one wants to hire, nazi.

Josh:

I think calling someone a “nazi” is a violation of SJI comments policy. It’s a “slur” and also “cyberbullying”.

> We will not post racist, sexist or sexually explicit comments, obvious commercial promotion, off-topic comments or comments that constitute a slur against a person or group.
> We will not publish comments that deride a person or group of people for their physical characteristics, and we will not post comments from “cyberbullies.”

How proud you must be of that persuasive post, SMH. What I speculated as possibly being equivalent was not the two acts, but the intentions of those involved. Had the offending male attempted to provoke outrage by wearing blackface instead of holding a swastika, one would not need to equate the two strategies to realize the intentions were the same. Or are you ready to claim that blackface is not as outrageous as the swastika? Go back to the crappy college that charged you big bucks to keep you ignorant and share your wisdom with other idiots.

You made two points in your critique of my post and neither of them were based on what I actually said. I did not say life and death danger is the only thing worth worrying about nor did I say I was bothered by the Mexicans waving their flag. Do you also hear things that aren’t said, or is your disability confined to your reading?

I get it. You did not say anything it seems like you said. Let the gaslighting begin.

How long ago did you see or hear about Mexicans waving flags? Was it once or multiple times? Didn’t bother you at all? Did it make an impression at least? How come you remember it? Did you find it objectionable? Did you disapprove? Is disapproval different from being bothered? Why mention it in a post about neo Nazis?

I know, too many questions. Better to make a blanket statement suggesting I just don’t get it, engage in some namecalling, and leave it at that.

How about reacting to what I wrote instead of what you inferred? I mentioned the Mexican march because, like the women’s march, both were controversial public events covered by the media. How I felt about the Mexican marchers was immaterial to the point I was trying to make. Same with the death and danger comment, where I attempted to contrast the legitimate emotional impact of historical study against that of personal experience.

You directed nine questions to me all in an attempt to regain your intellectual footing and failed miserably.

Seen on social media a while back: “I haven’t seen so many liberals/democrats this upset since republicans made them give up slavery.” Of course one could also say, “I haven’t seen so many liberals/democrats this upset since republicans made them pass the civil rights act”.

That’s pretty much my perspective here. One of the big takeaways from the campaign is that Trump seriously wanted to improve employment and job prospects for the jobless and the lower classes and many of his campaign promises reflected that:
– more jobs for the poor and working families
– reduce the illegal immigrant population in the US which would, among other outcomes, open up jobs for youth and those just entering the workforce as well as reduce the population of illegals who’ve committed other/additional crimes – which criminologists find disproportionately affects the poor/lower income earners, etc
– re-negotiate trade treaties which have disadvantaged American blue collar workers and manufacturing industries
– bring more blue collar and manufacturing jobs back to the US.

The only ‘poor/vulnerable’ I see being adversely affected here are those who are illegal immigrants and their families, and, since their presence here is the result of criminal acts, I have exactly as much sympathy for them that a Mexican might have for an illegal immigrant from, say, Honduras.

The democrats are outraged because this means that the poor might actually have MORE opportunities to lift themselves out of impoverishment and discover that they really don’t need more government involvement/interference/intervention in order to improve their lives.

In other words, the poor would no longer be enslaved by the kind of government largess advocated by liberals.

Just a few days ago we doubleplus ungood critics were admonished to shut up because if we had only attended the march/rally we would have been swept up in the good feelings and consequently would be unable to resist changing political parties, joining the ACLU, welcoming illegal aliens into our houses, smoking dope, questioning our gender identity etc
So I’m sure now that the Nazi on the balcony has drunk the Koolaid we can rest assured that he has been brought into the PC fold and no longer poses a thought crime risk.

You are talking about a very different case. And you still have not answered my question. The SJI comments policy addresses slurs against a person or group. Are you concerned the slur Nazi applies to someone who belongs to the Nazi group, or mislabels someone who is not actually a Nazi? If the 1st, how is it a slur? It is factually accurate. If the latter, how do you know this other person is not actually a Nazi? Truth is a defense to a libel action. Where the post is explicitly about Nazis, a comment apparently sympathetic to Nazis, or apparently taking the stance of an apologist or defender of Nazis, or minimizing the gravity of Nazi paraphernalia, rightfully may be suspected to originate from a Nazi.

Furthermore, what is the damage or reputation injury in this libel action? Who is damaged? BUBBLY? FRUSTRATED DOODOO? JOHN OF GALT? FRANCISCO D’ANCONIA? MR. M.T. GUNN?

We are all anonymous here. Nobody has lost a job as a result of being labelled a Nazi. If anything, they have only gained more alt right goons as friends.

Before you go around trying to terrorize people with things like arrest and legal action, you should start trying to figure out the difference between your behind and a hole in the wall.

You can keep repeating the same thing if it makes you feel good. Doesn’t mean it makes more sense. Who is injured? SIR JOHN OF GALTSHIRE? FRUSTRATED DAZED & CONFUSED? FRODO BAGGINS? BOHANNON? STARSKY & HUTCH? What is their injury? More street cred among their anonymous friends on one internet site? Who do you sue? How do you serve them with summons? A court is more likely to issue monetary sanctions for abuse of process against the person who brings this frivolous suit, than it is to order anyone to pay money to your crew of hobbits.

——————
. . . Vidal then interjected that “the only sort of pro- or crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself [William F. Buckley],” whereupon Smith interjected, “Now let’s not call names.”

Buckley sued Vidal and Esquire for libel; . . .

After Buckley received an out-of-court settlement from Esquire, he also dropped the suit against Vidal. Both cases were dropped,[86] with Buckley settling for court costs paid by Esquire Magazine, which had published the piece, while Vidal, who did not sue the magazine, absorbed his own court costs, but neither had paid each other compensation. Buckley also received an editorial apology in the pages of Esquire as part of the settlement.

The feud was reopened in 2003 when Esquire republished the original Vidal essay, at which time further legal action against the magazine resulted in Buckley’s being compensated both personally and for his legal fees, along with an editorial notice and apology in the pages of Esquire, again.
——————

I will take your word and assume Buckley had a rightful claim and recovered something. If so, the WHO WAS INJURED was William Buckley, a journalist/commentator with a reputation to defend. The rightful claim, presumably, was that he was not a Nazi, was falsely labeled such, and suffered a reputation injury as a result.

Again, here, WHO IS INJURED? Are they even claiming they are not a Nazi? If they are claiming that, are they right? Did the alleged libelor falsely call them a Nazi knowing it was false or recklessly failing to check? And most importantly, WHAT IS THEIR INJURY?

Never mind responding unless you want to. I already know what you will say.

> Never mind responding unless you want to. I already know what you will say.

Good. But I would like to know what I would say. Feel free to post your version of my answer and I will grade it and correct it,

But, I would like to invite Josh to take a crack at answering your question:

> WHO IS INJURED?

Who is harmed if someone is falsely labeled a Nazi? And why do juries award compensation and reimbursement of legal fees?

As an aside, I have to believe that the legal fees in Buckley vs. Esquire were MAMMOTH: hours and hours of dueling constitutional and free speech experts from “white shoe” law firms and Ivy League colleges. Whoa.

Probably every highbrow “constitutional expert” who testified could command a speaking for of $10,000 per hour.

Josh and DOWNER are going to be in hock for a LONG, LONG time if they have to reimburse SJI for somebody’s defamation defense.

The left just love trying to insult anyone they disagree with by calling them Nazi, and Fascist the terms have become meaningless because of the overuse.
In reality they are opposite end of the totalitarian socialist scale with a representative republic being 180 degrees away.

KKK is the old militant racist branch of the Democrat Party, replaced by NOW and later BLM and Occupy whatever, Souther Poverty Law center another branch of fractured malcontents
in bed with the DNC.

Now you might have insulted the guy with the camera, that was waiting for you to do something bad, he could be from the Murky News !

“Grass is Green”…except when its dry, dead, burnt, or anything changes its color…”The Sky is Blue”…except when its cloudy, has red in it, at night, or anything else changes its color…

See? i can do it too!!! This arguing is garbage. Perspective is what you believe because it is what you have LIVED…not what you have heard. The most valuable education is that of experience, or putting the written word into practical application.

After reading the article and all the comments, the conclusion is pretty clear: two guys on a balcony represent everyone who voted for Donald Trump. Therefore, Trump voters are neo-Nazis. QED

Contrast that narrative, for example, with a black man who does something people object to,. Does he represent all blacks, like these two guys are being used to paint Trump supporters as neo-Nazis? Or are there different rules based on one’s voting preference? Is this holier-than-thou article just situational ethics (which is not ethics at all)?

The Hue & Cry to positively identify these guys will be used for what, exactly? For a Metro Free Speech award? To interview them for their point of view, maybe? Wake me if that ever happens…

So why the demand for their identities? Were they doing something illegal? And if Metro determines their identities… then what? Are hate charges next? Tar and feather them? Force them to do community service? What does the author propose—and why, exactly? What did they do that this crowd of marchers isn’t doing?

There were more than 20 million people killed under Stalin’s Soviets (compared with ≈12 million that Hitler was responsible for). If two people waved a hammer and sickle symbol ( ￼☭ ) from a balcony would Metro run an article conflating everyone who voted for Obama with Stalin?

Would Metro imply that someone waving a communist flag are no different than this leftist crowd, composed of people who are for completely open borders and Sanctuary cities? The same crowd that’s always pro-abortion, pro-gun control, pro-Soviet, pro-Islam, pro-affirmative action, and for forced diversity? The same folks opposed to free speech—for others? The same leftists who are always hostile toward caucasians? And against democratic elections (when their flawed candidate loses)? The same ones who use our schools as their leftist indoctrination centers? The same ones pushing for unisex bathrooms, and for more and bigger government? The same ones promoting non-standard sexuality in our schoolchildren?

The leftist point of view is always lionized by Metro—but if 2 guys egg the crowd on by waving a swastika, that means they’re representing all Trump voters?

Would the same crowd that’s wagging a finger at two stooges on a balcony, equating them with the everyone these anti-Trump marchers are hating on, scold someone wearing a Che Guevara shirt and waving a Soviet flag? As if.

Both Metro and the folks interviewed are clearly equating those two with the many millions of Americans who voted down their leftist vision for America. THAT is what they rellly hate: the fact that voters have rejected their un-American agenda. They’re marching against democracy.

That’s the take-away message here. Because I didn’t read anything in the article like, “Oh, those two are crazy, or they’re just trying to stir up some sh!t. But they don’t represent the democratic majority that elected the new President.”

No, the message is crystal clear: those two DO represent everyone who voted for Donald Trump.

I agree with you that not all Trump voters are neo-Nazis. I also am not really interested in the identity of this apparently neo-Nazi gentleman in the picture. I do think, though, that the extreme right-wing hate faction is part of the Trump constituency, and I do not think Trump has done much to discourage them. If anything, he has done the opposite. So yes, I do think it is incumbent on the non neo-Nazi faction of Trump voters to condemn neo-Nazi sentiments — as Trump’s son Eric did at one point. And when I see Trump voters act as apologists for an apparent neo-Nazi, quibble over the definition of “neo-Nazi,” bring up Mexican flags in an apparent plea for equal treatment for neo Nazis, then yes — I do find that alarming. Then yes — I do question where the sympathies of these other Trump voters lie. If they are not condemning neo-Nazi sentiment, but focusing on how neo-Nazis and lesbians might be similar, how are they distinguishing themselves from the extreme segment of the Trump constituency?

I didn’t have to do much to link them. The neo-Nazis, like the one in the picture, are doing the linking for me. Trump voters who act as apologists for neo-Nazis, like the ones commenting on this site, are doing the linking for me. Trump himself, when he refers to people who look like they shouldn’t be allowed to vote, is doing the linking for me. You want people to stop linking the two? Then begin your comments with — “I condemn the symbol of hate that guy was holding up.” Not by accusing the “left” of “exaggeration and hyperbola [sic].” Not by putting “neo Nazi” in scare quotes, as if it’s a leftist fabrication.

The guy holding the flier is wearing a Bernie Sanders hat, and the flier is not a swastika but an anti-Trump flier…its a bit blurry but it’s really TRUMP all around with long T’s. I’ve looked into this thoroughly after arguing with people defending Nazis and thinking that these guys were scumbags at first. Just want you to know the actual truth. Thank goodness Nazis were not at that San Jose rally.

Cook portrays himself and his pals as neo-Nazis. Really. But that is never criticized in the mainstream media for the simple reason that they’re on the same side, pushing the “dangerous man-made global warming” canard.

If it wasn’t for hypocrisy and projection, the left wouldn’t have much to say, would they?

Your link looks like a photoshopped image of a guy. Unclear what, if any, relevance it has to this context. Let’s assume the mainstream media looked the other way when a climate change advocate portrayed himself as a Nazi for unclear reasons. Does that mean Trump does not have significant support among neo-Nazis? Or are you suggesting more neo-Nazis supported Clinton than Trump? #AlternativeFacts

The blog is pretty arcane and it’s hard to get a sense of what he’s trying to say. But, what difference does it make? I’m reminded of a Joseph Goebbels quote on the similarity between “communists” and Nazis:

“Lenin is the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight.”

As quoted in The New York Times, “Hitlerite Riot in Berlin: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler to Lenin,” November 28, 1925 (Goebbels’ speech Nov. 27, 1925)

There’s really only one way to settle this. If someone is going to watch a politically correct protest, they must wear the “Uniform of Non-conformity and Inclusion”; They must wear:
• A sombrero with a rainbow colored swastika on it;
• a skirt with a Mexican flag motif;
• ruby slippers;
• A Che Guevara T-shirt;
• a Guy Fawkes mask;
• a necklace with 3 pendants: a Cross; a Star of David; and a Crescent and Star;
• an eye-patch with an ISIS flag on it,

And they should pee in whatever restroom they fancy but they have to do so seated.
Now, is everyone equally happy or offended? Thank you. Please drive through.

> Nazi s want Jews, Muslims, People of color, LGBTQ people, and disabled people dead just for existing.

Ross:

I actually don’t know what Nazi’s want.

But I DO know that so-called “deep ecologists” believe that humans are a virus on the planet and want the human population of the planet reduced to the planet’s “bearing capacity” of a few million people.

I think you could say the deep ecologists “want . . . people dead just for existing”.

Muslims also hate blacks, except when the blacks in question happen to be Muslim, in which case, they rest lower on the muslim hierarchy of goodness than do arab muslims. Also arab and north African muslim raiders routinely raided black African tribes for slaves and sold them to (often) Dutch and Portuguese slave traders who sold them in various parts of the world including the Western Hemisphere.

From my experience and observations, Jews mostly want to be left alone by Muslims, but that’s unlikely to ever happen since anti-semitism is a part of Islamic canon and almost universally inculcated into the broader muslim consciousness.

And, if theres’ any single group that wants most of the people in the US and the world dead, it’s Muslims whose religion broadly advocates conversion of non-believers to Islam, or, failing that, killing or enslaving them. Or had you forgotten that Muslim leaders routinely refer to the US as ‘the great satan’?

Anyway figures you wouldn’t know. How about uou go away and do some homework and learn about facism and Nazi propaganda and how it shaped history. Go do some research on the holocaust.

People, remember… nazi type of hate speech is never “just” speech…it’s the dissemination and spread of violent ideas, which makes it that much easier to be a hater (as we can read from some of the hater posts above) AND even to commit physical violence against at risk groups targeted by thier propaganda.

Free speech is free speech regardless of whether the listener finds the speech repugnant. Even repugnant speech is protected by the first amendment, and it is only when that speech becomes criminal action that a violation of the law occurs.

FYI, southern Democrats in the years leading up to, during and for a long time after, the Civil War found speech advocating the emancipation of slaves to be repugnant.

Oh, and another FYI: (primarily) southern Democrats also found speech advocating for the Civil Rights act and full enfranchisement of black people to also be repugnant.

This is a swastika but it’s not any kind of flag used by the Nazi’s or KKK these useally have a black swastika on a round white field on a red flag, or a white circle on a red and black with a cross. These are never on a white square.

I did find a swastika on what looked like a Swedish flag blue and yellow on a square.
The other flag I found was a red swastika on a square white square on a red,white, red bar flag, carried by a guy looking like Bernie Sanders an anti Trump banner. Seem’s to be lots of protesters carrying anti Trump sign’s with swastikas on them.

I Looked for that hat, I found lots like it but not green on black.

Not that I’m trying to vindicate Nazi’s of anything, but this seem to be an Bernie supporter as several of you have pointed out!